"[W]e want to make sure that the electoral process has integrity --- that it is not shot through with fraud."

...Well, that's somewhat encouraging to hear. Though a pity that more such discussion did not actually occur in yesterday's hearings (Live Blogged here).

We've also heard from a reliable source that Carter spoke about "paper ballots" a number of times at that same press conference, and of using them as the counted ballot of record as they are overseas. That's also encouraging...if true...and if he can climb over the mountain of hard-right Bush/Cheney/GOP partisans and voting machine representatives who comprise and stack the commission against such real reform.

Also of note from the WaPo article was this little turn o' phrase:

Much of the testimony was anecdotal, with many bemoaning the lack of hard evidence that would indicate how widespread the problems are.

We're not sure who "many" refers to in the above, nor which "hard evidence" was lacking. We do know that the mountains of existing hard evidence of Election Irregularities from '04 was not presented at all in yesterday's hearings, and that John Conyers --- who presented 102 pages of same --- was not invited to share that evidence with this commission.

The evidence that was presented, specifically on the strawman argument of "Voter Fraud" and "Voter Registration Fraud" and even "Provisional Voting Fraud" was indeed anectodal, and yet that was the "evidence" that was allowed to be presented to the commission yesterday. We hope that things will change in the next (and presumably last) meeting of the commission, but we are dubious at best.

The WaPo piece, however, did manage to offer add small bit of refreshing light to the mainstream media blackout on this issue. A few notable passages from the article:

[T]he first hearing yesterday of the Commission on Federal Election Reform made it clear that the 2004 election was not without problems.
...
[T]he academics, advocacy group leaders and politicians invited to testify yesterday provided a dizzying list of electoral problems that might make some wonder how any ballots were counted in November.

They told of absentee ballots that were never delivered. Of voters who were arbitrarily struck from the rolls. Of confusing and poorly designed ballots. Of long lines at the polls. Of inadequate funds to train poll workers.

Some complained that polls are frequently inaccessible to wheelchairs. That bilingual assistance is lacking. That there are too few voting machines, especially in minority communities.

Others asked whether partisan officials ought to be in charge of elections. Whether the country needs a voting holiday to improve turnout. Whether the nation should adopt uniform poll closing times so elections called in the East do not depress turnout in the West. Whether photo identifications ought to be required to vote. And whether to create a "paper trail" for electronic voting machines.

"Years of inattention and, yes, complacency at all levels of government have given us an election management system that is not up to the task," said Kay Maxwell, president of the League of Women Voters. "We must look more closely at the next steps that need to be taken to bring our election system back to health."
...
"In the 2004 presidential election, the United States came much closer to electoral meltdown, violence in the streets and constitutional crisis than most people realize," professor Richard Hasen of Loyola Law School said in his written comments. "Less than a 2 percent swing among Ohio voters --- about 100,000 voters --- toward Democratic candidate for president John Kerry and away from incumbent Republican President Bush would have placed the Ohio --- and national --- election for president well within the 'margin of litigation,' and it would have gotten ugly very quickly."

Hmmm...It's almost as if the WaPo is suggesting that the '04 Election didn't go quite as smoothly as they, and the other corporate media outlets, have led Americans to believe up until now. Who knew?

Perhaps they'd like to begin investigating and reporting to the American people on some of the items in that "dizzying list of electoral problems"? America is still waiting...Perhaps we can bump it up to page 15 when that happens. As we like to say, it's only democracy at stake.

The way I see it, Jimmy Carter could have done much more for the subject of election fraud, e-voting fraud and election reform by totally boycotting this sham of a panel.

They are using him for one thing and one thing only and that's to have talking points of the panel being "bipartisan" and Carter having strong liberal roots. Heck, if Jimmy Carters was on the panel then any changes or lack there of to the election process must be fully legit, right?

I personally find it sickening Carter would even consider being part of this fraudfest without pushing to have John Conyers seated with him or to enter into the record Conyers 102 page report.

I think a new E-mail campaign should be directed at Carter. This time giving him hell for giving this bogus panel legitimacy.

I've mentioned this before but we truly need to think outside of the box and mobilize a movement that will force the e-voting fraud issue out to the people. It needs to be something that the corrupt corporate media can't ignore. Panels like this including Carter only hurt the issue not help.

Come up with a 1 page flyer that says it straight out in a way that catches peoples' interest and go door to door, neighborhood after neighborhood, parking lot after parking lot ??? Surely we can think of something that will help.

Carter is an old man. That's the only excuse I can make for him. He has allowed himself to be used as a pawn in a Rovian exercise in public relations, designed to bury the notion of electoral fraud in 2004 once and for all.

If this phony commission happens to come up with anything constructive, its purpose will be too deceive any open-minded person who might entertain suspicions about the election. And we can be sure Rove will have already contrived a way to get around it in time for the 2002 election.

I agree with the first post. They're using Carter since a lot of democrats respect him and all that so they can say: "see? He trusts US!" It's just like how the Bush's use Clinton. That's what they're doing. Is there a way to make them hear Conyers, Arnebeck and Cobb and see their evidance?

Robert #4 I agree, I don't have the stomach for paying attention to them. But my concern is that they will offer this "evidence" to congress. Distort the facts, hide the fraud. I think the evidence Mr. Conyers compiled should go to Congress also.

I started collecting articles on election fraud March 2003 here ... www.sweetliberty.blogspot.com
There are around 600 article summaries and links on it. And those are just the ones I could keep up with! I sort of gave up on it after the 2004 election disaster, but now have started collecting again (including lots from bradblog.com ... thanks Brad!) I don't think anybody knows it's there. Maybe the people who claim to have been deaf, dumb, and blind through rigged elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004, need to come on over and see the elephant in the room that they have been ignoring for over 4 years.

In reply to #1:
"The way I see it, Jimmy Carter could have done much more for the subject of election fraud, e-voting fraud and election reform by totally boycotting this sham of a panel. "

No, the best thing he could do is to sit halfway through the panel, and then (very publicly) leave in protest. By boycotting, he would just make it another panel, with another democratic statesman used as excuse. But by withdrawing, he can raise a whole lot more awareness of the sham and the issues.

Well, I think we have to wait and see what turns up. I agree that it's not looking good, but we just don't know yet. Carter is "old school" and he's an old man.. he does things slower than "us" in our newfangled age of "gimme it now".

If there are 2 more sessions.. and the word is out that "no one brought out the 'hard' evidence", perhaps Carter is going to do it at one of the next meetings.. Perhaps he's swallowing the big nasty pill he has to swallow put up with this part of the shenanigans (sp) until he's ready to drop out the info?.. Hell, perhaps he's waiting to see if they are going to bring up the 'real' facts that Conyers told him about, and failing that, perhaps he's planning a "walk out in extraordinary fasion"..

Gawd.. as if we didn't have enough to worry about with election issues.. Now DeLay comes and says things like "we can remove judges if they don't have good behavior.. and we mean to define what good behavior is".. riiiiiiiiiight.. like someone rebuked 3 times by the ethics comitte has ANY business talking about behavior?

I find it totally disgusting that the Washington Post printed the article re: Electoral Problems on page 17. BURIED on pg. 17. The same way the article which showed evidence that Gore actually won in 2000 appeared buried in one of the papers a day or 2 before 9/11. Shows how much our papers really care about Democracy. SHAME on them.

Unfortunately, people like Carter forget that it's not about him, Carter. It's about a fundamental, moral and legal issue - his statement "[W]e want to make sure that the electoral process has integrity --- that it is not shot through with fraud" - tells me he just doesn't understand what's going on...at all...because, (a) "We" the commission actually wants to bury the subject of election fraud (b) be my guest, and fill in the blank (c) etc. As usual, you can't rely on Carter. You must rely on yourselves and your own inspired ingenuity. Shake all the trees. Do anything and everything that will shake up the status quo.

Carter like Baker/Bush/Kerry are all members of CFR (Council on Foriegn Relations) and the Trilateral Commission and the Bildenburg Group. These folks create institutions like World Bank and IMF to control economies around the world and in effect mandate the direction of the New World Order. A little so-called "democratic" election in a back-water to-be country like the USA can't stand in the way of PROGRESS. Please, Carter USES his image to fool the blue people into thinking the dog and pony show of left and right is legit. Just as Clinton has been on board for this movement since he created NAFTA and signed the FCC's 1996 ACT allowing media conglomerates to control the propoganda apparatus. We are fools... all of us. Have a nice day. bob - "won't get fooled again"

I hope you're right, Savanster. But I'm not optimistic. Carter referred to Baker as his "second favorite Republican," which tells me he joined this charade in a sincere belief in its objectivity.

That's why I said he's an "old man." This is the same Jimmy Carter who was brave enough and savvy enough to see through Ferdinand Marcos and bring about his downfall even as Reagan was praising Marcos as a "wonderful friend." Carter isn't dumb, but I'm afraid he's become a passive elder statesman without the stomach for a battle. He's being used, plain and simple. What a damn shame.

#21, I'm with you ..don't trust Carter, that's why he was picked. Carter's administration ruined family farms. His buddies, big Ag. bought them up. When Howard Dean got Carter's psuedo endorsement in Iowa..his poll numbers dropped. A farm that has been in your family for generations, lost to corrupt govt. You don't forget.

The problem here, though, is that Carter is respected as an election monitor. That's why he was placed on this commission, to lend an appearance of bi-partisan competence to it. When Carter praised Baker as his "second-favorite Republican," (please don't ask who was #1) it was a real blow to our cause, because it further legitimized the commission itself. I'm sure even Karl Rove didn't expect that remark.

I respectfully suggest we ignore it for the time being, except for reminding Dr. Pastor about the Constitutional right to protest without being accused of harassment. When it's over, we can take issue with its specific findings.